Falklands second commercial flight: Damage from touchdown in Argentina

The commercial benefits of a second link are hypothetical – we are doing all right as it is.

The recent statement entitled ‘Progress made towards establishing a second commercial Falkland Islands air link’ released by the Falkland Islands Government has met with a mixed reception in the Islands. While some have expressed favor others have reservations and questions such as the current letter from Eric M Goss MBE publishes in the Penguin News.

I was disturbed to hear and read about the press release from MLA Barry Elsby and CEO Barry Rowland on the recent development to establish a second flight from South America.

They don’t realize the long term damage this will bring by allowing a touchdown each way once a month in Argentina. The present call at Rio Gallegos has problems and drawbacks. The commercial benefits of a second link are hypothetical – we are doing all right as it is. Rotor winds are likely to cause a diversion to Comodoro Rivadavia and we don’t want go down that road again.

The 1999 Agreement was done behind our backs. It was set up by the FCO with the late Robin Cook leading our councilors by the nose. The Agreement was signed without the knowledge of the local community. When the two councilors returned and broke the news a massive demonstration of protest assembled on Arch Green, proceeding with banners to 23 Ross Road West via a call at Government House. This collective show of the extreme displeasure is remembered by many citizens.

For 91 years from 1855 to 1946 the sovereignty issue was dead and buried. Good neighborly relations existed between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. This ended when the fanatical Juan Peron became President of Argentina. He revived the sovereignty claim, inciting his gullible nation to progress with his fake ideology.

Do the authors of the statement realize the long term problems another call will bring with a stop anywhere in Argentina, especially the capital?

Never start what you can’t stop. Let us not be persuaded by our transient population. Have the Argentines forgotten they are signatories of the 1944 Chicago Convention?
I object to any further connection with Argentina while they lay claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Top Comments

UN Resolution 567 (VI) adopts the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding whether; “... any territory is, or is not, a territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of selfgovernment.”

The Annex to the Resolution lists these factors and states; “The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”

There had been no people, then the territory could not be listed as a NSGT for the purposes of decolonization.

As for the C24, please see the UN records for August 19th when two members of the Falkland Islands' Legislative Assembly, John Cheek and Anthony Blake, arrived at the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization meeting in New York to represent the Falkland Islands' people. Venezuela, Cuba and Czechoslovakia objected, claiming that, as petitioners, they first had to be approved by the Sub-Committee on Petitions. Australia remind the Committee of Resolution 1466 (XIV) of 1959 which promoted the participation of representatives of the NSGTs in the work of the Committee. However, Chairman Abdulah of Trinidad and Tobago gave his decision.

“I am not going to ask members of the Secretariat to read General Assembly resolution 1466 (XIV), although I shall refer to it. I would point out that these two gentlemen are not here as petitioners; they are here as representatives of the people of the Territory which we are about to consider. Therefore, the question of referring any requests to the Sub-Committee on Petitions, Information and Assistance does not arise. That is the practice, has been the practice, and, I hope, will continue to be the practice in this Committee.”

Look it up old man.

Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:27 am +9

Roger Lorton

The 1952 resolution is clear. If there aint a 'people' then there aint a NSGT. Now, are you telling me that the UN has not got the Falklands listed as a NSGT?

Are you losing reason too Think?

Feb 26th, 2018 - 10:57 am +9

Roger Lorton

I'm not getting semantic on you Think, I'm getting legal on you. Words are important, in any language. People = People. It's plain enough even for you. Argue all you like, but while the Falklands are listed as an NSGT, then the Falklands have a 'People.' If the UN had decided that the Islanders were not a 'People' then, as some of the chairpersons have stated, the Falklands would have to be delisted.